Nobody does money like New Labour.

#1
Here's an excellent piece from the usually 'New Labour right or wrong' Guardian, in full for those on dodgy connections or who cannot stand looking at the Guardian.

With this the end is nigh

Nobody does money like New Labour, expense fiddling while Rome burns

From Basil Fawlty-style fawning before the rich to the petty chiselling, this party has long been out of its depth with cash

It is difficult to think of a more perfect testament to New ­Labour's intellectual shallows. On the eve of the most deadly serious budget in decades, ­Gordon Brown posts a YouTube video in which he announces he has scheduled some ­inquiry- ­pre-empting debate about MPs' ­expenses. It might as well have been captioned "I can haz bathplug?".

There are those who have judged that the next day's introduction of a 50% tax rate marked the end of New Labour. But for many students of the movement, that video seemed part of an absolute continuum with the past, combining an excruciating attempt to manipulate the news agenda with a helpful reminder of the petty chiselling of the Blair-Brown years. Think of it as expense fiddling while Rome burns.

MPs' expenses are a cross-party blight, of course. But when historians come to assess this edifying period for our democracy, they may well remark upon what a pity it was that certain members who were so fastidious about their personal outgoings were so ­profligate and laissez-faire with the ­public purse. Olympic overspends, a couple of wars – they waved through the lot while perusing the John Lewis ­electricals catalogue.

Doubtless historians will also note how pathetically in thrall the administration was to the very people out of whom it has taken such an ill-conceived bite this week. The cabal of very senior ministers and unelected advisers, to which we were obliged to refer as "the government", contrived to be both desperately impressed by the rich, and hopelessly out of its depth when dealing with them. One could never help but be reminded of Basil Fawlty in A Touch of Class, the Fawlty Towers pilot episode, in which Basil devotes himself to the most obsequious fawning before a ­conman calling himself Lord Melbury. Enormous cash advances, meticulous service to the exclusion of all other guests – there is simply nothing Basil can't do for his lordship, and the discovery that he has been made a mug of sends him predictably round the bend.

And so with our serially fawning government, which might be lashing out now, but whose forelock-tugging inferiority complex has been a defining characteristic. It wasn't just our special give-and-take relationship with George Bush's government (we gave, they took). Rather, it runs like a brown thread through the years since 1997. It was there in Peter Mandelson's famous ­declaration that New Labour was "intensely relaxed about people ­becoming filthy rich" – a styling meant to radiate progressive sophistication but which came off sounding like a fifth-former trying to look worldly.

It was there when Labour accepted a donation of a mere £100,000 from Richard Desmond – just days after it had waved through his £125m purchase of Express Newspapers. "I gave a cheque for £100,000 and they spent £113,000 or £114,000 on ­advertising," Desmond crowed later. "So I made money on the deal."

This morally bankrupt deference was there at every turn, from the piddling sum the party took from gazillionaire Lakshmi Mittal before sealing a £300m Romanian steel deal for him, to the fire-sale discounts at which one appeared able to land a peerage. New Labour's attempt to come across as market-savvy had all the mockney authenticity of a Guy Ritchie movie. They didn't ­understand their own market worth; they were hardly likely to start ­regulating those they clearly regarded as their betters.

Think of the Blairs, and their endless freebie holidays with everyone from Robin Gibb to Silvio Berlusconi. There go Tony and Cherie, you'd think, ­grinning out of the holiday photos like a pair of competition winners.

New Labour just looked like … well, small-time crooks is the ­expression, though of course there isn't the ­remotest suggestion that anyone did anything illegal.

As has become painfully clear, the gravest error was to assume that Brown was somehow divorced from this tendency, as opposed to echoing it in his own furtive way with his borrowing habit. And in the end, it's the smallness of these people that you can't get away from – the knowledge that Darling will be much more comfortable next week defending his use of second-home allowances than he will his budget.

A rather less comfortable public now feel that the chancellor's inability to even say the word "cuts" has moved way past being an insult to their intelligence. Any fool can see that savage slashing must lie ahead, and describing it as "efficiency savings" is a bit like describing Stalingrad as an argument in a car park. One pettish little tax hike isn't really going to cover it, and we can only leave the last word on the monumental inconsistency to Sybil Fawlty. "I have had it up to here with you. You never get it right. You're either crawling all over them, licking their boots, or spitting poison at them like some ­Benzedrine puff adder …"


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/24/labour-expenses
 
#2
Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant!

Give the man a job at The Daily Telegraph and get him a safe (about 630 of them coming up shortly) Tory seat.

Sadly, the only slight inaccuracy is the allusion to Basil Fawlty - he was funny. This unprincipled gang of free-loading, expense fiddling, intellectually bankrupt oafs is not funny at all - they are sad and dangerous, very dangerous.

Many thanks for the post 'armchair' - have a gold star and go to the top of the class.
 
#3
lsquared said:
Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant!

Give the man a job at The Daily Telegraph and get him a safe (about 630 of them coming up shortly) Tory seat.

Sadly, the only slight inaccuracy is the allusion to Basil Fawlty - he was funny. This unprincipled gang of free-loading, expense fiddling, intellectually bankrupt oafs is not funny at all - they are sad and dangerous, very dangerous.

Many thanks for the post 'armchair' - have a gold star and go to the top of the class.
I'm sure She 'Marina Hyde', is doing a better job of destroying the myth that labour have a clue if she continues to writing for the Guardian.

And safe seats given to those who please the leadership and not the people they are suppose to represent and that is regardless of party are one of the roots of why politics has sunk to even great depth of the sewer.
 
#4
My only thought here is:

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
haahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahaha.

She is absolutely spot on, but stand by Ashie coming on line to inform us that Lord Ashcroft has been placing 'sleepers' in the Guardian's ranks for years now, pretending to be solid 'New' Labour journos, spouting the usual claptrap, before being activated in the lead up to the next election. Either that, or she is a traitor to the party.

The allusion to Mandelson being like a fifth former trying to appear worldly is so absolutely spot on. The whole of this alleged 'government' is made up of schoolboy socialists or student union radicals whose capacity is best suited to calling for resolutions to ban Israeli academics, holding 'rag week against racism' concerts and going on marches to support the sisterhood in Somalia.

They are out of their depth to an astonishing degree - no wonder they cling to issues like their own personal remuneration, it is something tangible that they can understand. It is the same thing with our elders and betters - you can push through the most remarkable changes in policy with little more than a nod, but try to get through a change to number 2 dress, and everyone has an opinion!
 
#5
halo_jones said:
I'm sure She 'Marina Hyde', is doing a better job of destroying the myth that labour have a clue if she continues to writing for the Guardian.
Indeed the worm is turning at the Guardian, the old guard trots who have turned a once great news paper into an extension of New Labour spin machine are on the way out.

halo_jones said:
And safe seats given to those who please the leadership and not the people they are suppose to represent and that is regardless of party are one of the roots of why politics has sunk to even great depth of the sewer.
Here bloody here!
 
#6
IF you chisel your way through the 2009 Budget Red book, as many bean counters and analysts are still doing because the "detail" is in many respects still missing, you come to an astonishing fact.

Despite the hair shirt spoutings and a stupid. petty 50% tax rate (not to forget denying those same people tax relief for their own pension contributions AND treating any employers pensions contributions as a taxable benefit in kind) it comes down to this:

In 2009/10 Public Spending will INCREASE BY 5.5%. All this is paid for by yet more borrowing and the mythical "efficiency savings" only kick in starting from 2010/11.

Continuing to dig whilst UK PLC is already in a deep hole for nothing more than short term political gain shows how simply amoral and purely selfish this lot are and have always been.

The only glimmer of short term hope is that on 4 June 2009 Labour will do so badly in the EU MP and local elections that Brown will have to resign and that should trigger a General Election, although of course always the danger that Ed Ballsup or worse still Harridan Harperson gets shooed in.
 
#7
Blogg said:
The only glimmer of short term hope is that on 4 June 2009 Labour will do so badly in the EU MP and local elections that Brown will have to resign and that should trigger a General Election, although of course always the danger that Ed Ballsup or worse still Harridan Harperson gets shooed in.
If that awful woman Harperson becomes PM of Great Britain then I'll retire to my study with a bottle of whiskey and a revolver. I'd like to think it could never happen, but under new labour nothings impossible 8O
 
#8
An excellent article. How it must stick in the throat of ********* like Ashie and his fellow apologists that this succinct and accurate piece comes from the Tofu munching Grauniad.
 
#10
The Guardian article confirms it, thats there has been a sea-change in politics. Recently I have noticed news outlets being much more critical of the government. You only have to watch Question time to see what a slagging the Labour reps gets. Its building all the time, definately a change from the media fawning over Blair. Great article, that goes right to the heart of Labour.
 
#11
cancerman said:
Can someone tell me why the Tories have not tried to pass a vote of no confidence?....
Because the Labour Party is going the way of the old Liberal Party... into extinction and that is a very good thing.

A few more months of Brown and the socalist curse will be well on the way to being purged.
 

maguire

LE
Book Reviewer
#12
this 50% tax thing is illusory in any case - it's only going to create a tiny part of the income needed to repay this money.
plus anyone actually making that much (and I know a few) will just either move, offshore their financial affairs or get their accountant to fudge the books in their favour.
typical new liarbour bulls**t. kneejerk and badly thought out, and based on the politics of envy. I notice they've set the level that will leave their basic salary as MP's untouched by it.
 
#13
Because they would need a mojority in Parliament. Even unhappy Labour MPs aren't going to vote themselves out of a job with a year of salary to go (£190K +). Would Turkeys vote for Christmas?
 
#15
bobthedog said:
The Finance Act (Budget) is a confidence vote, if it fails to get passed it is an automatic confidence motion in the govenment.
Does that mean a vote of no confidence will be launched automatically? This isn't a wind-up question, since I'm not really au fait with the procedures in UK gobment.

MsG
 
#16
I just wondered whether nu-liarbor had passed some legislation outlawing the no confidence vote or something...... :? because as we know anything is possible with these spineless jellyfish and cyclops!!
Their ineptitude/subterfuge is mind boggling! :x
 
#17
armchair_jihad said:
cancerman said:
Can someone tell me why the Tories have not tried to pass a vote of no confidence?....
Because the Labour Party is going the way of the old Liberal Party... into extinction and that is a very good thing.

A few more months of Brown and the socalist curse will be well on the way to being purged.
Because the real danger is that someone would say that they're missing the point. The motion should not be 'this House has no confidence in the Government' but rather 'the country has no confidence in this House'.

I'm not prepared to say that they're all the same regardless of party, but I feel that in 9-12 months' time a truly reforming party could make massive gains. That could be the Tories if they gauge the national mood right; if not then I think our Parliament will only limp along for another 4 or 5 years before it is completely overhauled.
 
#18
Yes I believe its automatic and in the same way as failing to pass the Queen's Speech, if they fail to pass the finance act its a confidence motion, and the PM should go to seek royal assent to dissolve parliament with a view to forming a new government. Fingers Crossed!
 
#19
bobthedog said:
Yes I believe its automatic and in the same way as failing to pass the Queen's Speech, if they fail to pass the finance act its a confidence motion, and the PM should go to seek royal assent to dissolve parliament with a view to forming a new government. Fingers Crossed!
Fat fooking chance.
Brown will twist every ruel and ethic possible to avoid going to anelection until he has prooven to the nation he has been right all along. Wether it finsihes the country off or not.
 
#20
doc80905 said:
If that awful woman Harperson becomes PM of Great Britain then I'll retire to my study with a bottle of whiskey and a revolver. I'd like to think it could never happen, but under new labour nothings impossible 8O
You would do the country a far greater service by retiring to her study with a revolver and then having the whiskey as a celebratory drink after dispatching the horrific woman.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Top